cooky1257
pfm Member
Yeah, Prypiat is back to its old self.
Very des res and the neighbours are very quiet.
Great place for kid to play.
Dr Helen Caldicott Says Fukushima Is Much Worse Than Chernobyl
- Thread starter jackbarron
- Start date
Yeah, Prypiat is back to its old self.
Very des res and the neighbours are very quiet.
Great place for kid to play.
Greg
2t5b
Bob, are you saying that it's now safe to do so?
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
WHO say dangers were greatly exaggerated.
"..the average dose received by the 6.8 million people living in the most affected areas of belarus and the Russian federation is 7 millisieverts. This is less than 3 times the dose of background radiation which the average person receives in a year. It is comparable with doses received from diagnostic X-ray procedures."
Gregory Hartle, WHO spokesperson
Article in today's Times about people who moved back into the "danger zone" after Chernobyl and the 2006 WHO report that criticised the overreaction and fatatlity predictions that are subsequently way out.
"..the average dose received by the 6.8 million people living in the most affected areas of belarus and the Russian federation is 7 millisieverts. This is less than 3 times the dose of background radiation which the average person receives in a year. It is comparable with doses received from diagnostic X-ray procedures."
Gregory Hartle, WHO spokesperson
Article in today's Times about people who moved back into the "danger zone" after Chernobyl and the 2006 WHO report that criticised the overreaction and fatatlity predictions that are subsequently way out.
kasperhauser
pfm Member
No, no, the WHO is full of hooey. Hand-waving lady made that clear.
the same problem can't happen at Heysham. The plant which is just across the bay from us isn't built on a subduction zone. There is next to no chance of tsunami in the Irish sea, the reactors are gas cooled, not water cooled. I have felt two earth quakes in the past couple of years and I haven't died.
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
Maybe Mick will move there and mutate.
Imagine if he had two brains - you'd get twice the amount of Tory swill.
Jack
Imagine if he had two brains - you'd get twice the amount of Tory swill.
Jack
Greg
2t5b
It's interesting, as the collection of papers entitled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" (as published by the New York Academy of Sciences, though not published as an expression of their opinion):
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1
...paints quite a different picture. Regards Chernobyl - there's good reason to think that significant political pressure is bearing down on the public profiling of nuclear power generation, given that most governments of developed nations have concluded there is little choice but ramp up nuc power generation.
They may well be quite correct that we have little choice, but to that end they don't want public opinion to threaten the plan on the basis of what happened in Chernobyl.
I can see the political importance of this strategy, but anyone who genuinely believes that what happened in Chernobyl was no biggie is an idiot IMO. This isn't somehow science vs emotion, this is politics vs science.
People were told to leave and built their lives elsewhere. The fact that it's empty doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.
There's a programme on R4 tonight about the aftermath of Cherbobyl. Sounds interesting, based on the trailers.
kasperhauser
pfm Member
Lest I be grouped into this category, I'll clarify that I believe that, as with most things, the "truth" likely lies somewhere between the extremes painted by the ass-coverers and the Chicken Littles, i.e., yes, something extraordinarily bad happened and far too many people - almost certainly more than we can reliably account for - were impacted, but no, the entire population of the world didn't drop dead on the spot.
Or, it's both (emotional Chicken Littles, political ass-coverers, and science).
cooky1257
pfm Member
Erm.Chernobyl wasn't caused by a quake/tsunami.
This is the usual argument trotted out by the pro nuke lobby; it wasn't the same reactor type as Chernobyl so it can't go wrong, ditto it isn't water cooled on a fault line etc-it was the unforeseen (ok the Chernobyl was an out of control experiment) that caused the problems. How about a plane crashing into a containment vessel or easier, a cooling pond, tursts, cyber attack etc?
I havent even got to where we store the waste yet....Watch more 4 tonight.
Greg
2t5b
Kasper, I'm inclined to agree on both counts. The thing that worried me recently was the very very low balling done by the IAEA report, which certainly some pfmers seemed to accept without any criticism and used it to support their position on the subject.
Slight tangent, but regards nuclear waste, this article is quite interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/24/nuclear-waste-storage?INTCMP=SRCH
Actually coming from the PoV of architecture, but it does raise some interesting points about the quantity and timespans we're talking about; and that's before a new phase of building new plants.
kasperhauser
pfm Member
I do lament the lack of transparency in these situations. It promotes the Chicken Little mentality among some, even as it lulls others into a false sense of security; both attitudes are detrimental to the long-term common good. Would be nice to just get the straight story, for once.
NeilR
pfm Member
Another crackpot? or someone we should be taking very seriously?
[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-3Kf4JakWI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-3Kf4JakWI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-3Kf4JakWI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-3Kf4JakWI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
The Professor says that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
He believes 1,400,000 people were killed by cancer and other problems due to what happened in Chernobyl.
He says what is happening in Fukushima is much worse.
The Prof points out that the people who take the opposite view are from the nuclear industry or work for the Japanese government.
There is, he adds, a lot of money behind all of this.
Is the Prof a crackpot?
I don't think so at all.
Jack
He believes 1,400,000 people were killed by cancer and other problems due to what happened in Chernobyl.
He says what is happening in Fukushima is much worse.
The Prof points out that the people who take the opposite view are from the nuclear industry or work for the Japanese government.
There is, he adds, a lot of money behind all of this.
Is the Prof a crackpot?
I don't think so at all.
Jack